Oh but Obama's signing statement are okay? How about his expansion of warrantless wire taps? How about his executive orders, his czars? What about his killing of innocent civilians with the use of drones, or his expansion of war in Afghanistan?

According to the Congressional Research Service Report in 2007, President Bush had used signing statements 152 times. Certainly, he used them more after 2007, but consider that Clinton used signing statements 381 times. Definitely, Bush was the bad guy there.

""Torture" was not redefined"Well, when our government prosecuted Japanese war criminals after WWII, one of the crimes we prosecuted them for was torturing their prisoners, including by the use of water-boarding.

I'd argue that that puts water-boarding pretty definitively in the torture column.

But under W, water-boarding was repeatedly called, "enhanced interrogation techniques."

It's just Newspeak.

"Oh but Obama's signing statement are okay?"Nope, they were bad under W, and they're bad under the new guy. Precedent can be a real pain sometimes, can't it?"How about his expansion of warrantless wire taps?" Same.

"How about his executive orders, his czars?"His executive orders? Case-by-case. The president does have the authority to issue orders to government officials in the executive branch.His czars? This is a non-issue that the radical right has turned into a wonderful drum for other wingnuts to beat. The term "czar" is an invention of the media as a shorthand way to refer to the president's various advisers on various subjects. For example, the TARP Czar's actual title is "Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability." But Czar sounds foreign and scary, so Beck and his ilk love to wave it around like a smoking gun. I just wish more people could see that the 'smoke' is actually a little flag that says "BANG!""What about his killing of innocent civilians with the use of drones," I don't like it any better than the right does, although during the Bush administration the right called it 'collateral damage.' "his expansion of war in Afghanistan?"I didn't so much like that either. But I'm surprised--no, not surprised, really--that the right has been condemning it when the right was in total favor of the war in the first place.

Don't forget US Military personnel were punished for water boarding during Vietnam as well. You have a point. It was the Bush Admin that "redefined" torture. Just like FDR redefined civil rights when he ordered the use of internment camps during WWII. I will say that least water boarding was restricted to a few people vice thousans of women and children being herded like cattle against their will.

Jeff, I was studying waterboarding and it does appear at this point that that technique has always been officially disapproved. I'll have to look at it some more.

As far as precedent, Clinton is the one to take signing statements far beyond what they had ever been. If you want to talk precedent for this problem, look at the Democrats.

Executive orders are a problem irregardless of the party or president. I can see no constitutional justification for them, especially when they are issued as the law of the land, and not just as internal memo-type documents.

It's not just a matter of quantity. Bush used them to (as the accompanying report states): "Presidential signing statements that assert President Bush’s authority to disregard or decline to enforce laws adopted by Congress undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers... To address these concerns, the task force urges Congress to adopt legislation enabling its members to seek court review of signing statements that assert the President’s right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress, and urges the President to veto bills he feels are not constitutional."

"But those directly affected by [Lincoln's] decisions to suspend the write of habeas corpus may have believed that the term "dictator" did not miss the mark by much."

The Constitution specifically mentions two incidences when the federal government may suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus: during cases of invasion or rebellion. Article 1, section 9, if you want to look it up for yourself.

The Southern states were certainly in rebellion, and even if you concede that the several states have the right to secede, Lee's army definitely invaded the remaining United States. Seems like a suspension was pretty Constitutional, even if it wasn't desirable.

He might know history, but I'm a bit worried about his understanding of the Constitution.

How could the writ of Habeas Corpus be suspended by Lincoln? that's a Legislative power, hence, it is in Article 1 and not article 2. Lincoln usurped legislative power from the Congress in order to take away the rights of his citizens . This act is an act of a tyrant -- isn't this exactly the same sort of thing that led us to secede from Great Britain? the executive acting on his own without regard to the parliament?

Also, here's a little conundrum for ye: How could Lincoln have invaded the south? were they a foreign country, as per the South's declarations? or were they 'rebel states' that were using their constitutional right to secession? --- if they were foreign, then Lincoln invaded them without a Declaration of War. If they were still part of the Union, as is commonly the zeitgeist of the time, then he launched an all-out campaign of total war against fellow US citizens without taking into account the senate or the house.

Well, then. Were the Confederate states invading the Union? No! The South never once sent an army into northern land until 1862! Lincoln had suspended Habeas Corpus by April 19th, 1861. Lincoln (tyrannically) usurped legislative power from Congress, and then (tyrannically) suspended Habeas Corpus during a time and situation that would not have made it Constitutional even if it were done by Congress.

Lincoln was a tyrant. He was either an Uber-George W. Bush, or he was a mild-King George III. either way, just about everyone MUST agree that it was tyranny.

(oh, and before you ask. No, i'm not a racist - i think my icon shows that I'm rather open to the other races. And No, i'm not a southerner - I was bern'n'raised in Ohio)

"hat's a Legislative power, hence, it is in Article 1 and not article 2."Mea maxima culpa. I stand corrected. The power to suspend habeas corpus is indeed reserved for the legislature, and my defense of Lincoln doing it was sloppy reasoning on my part.

The government, through act of congress, could have done it constitutionally. The executive branch acting alone was in violation of the Constitution. Thanks, Evan, for calling me on my mistake.

I still disagree with you about whether the Southern states were engaged in rebellion or not. Attacking federal troops at a federal fort sure looks like an act of rebellion to me.

"Also, here's a little conundrum for ye: How could Lincoln have invaded the south?"You're going to have to refresh my memory on that: did someone say Lincoln "invaded" the Confederacy? I would say that he sent troops to suppress a rebellion, much as Governor Bowdoin did when Captain Shays rebelled in Massachusetts (1786).

"were they 'rebel states' that were using their constitutional right to secession?"Eh, I'm not entirely certain that secession is accepted as a state's right. But it's not entirely clear that it isn't, either.

"The South never once sent an army into northern land until 1862!" I still call that an invasion, and alas for the Confederacy, it legitimized any and all belligerent responses from the North.

"during a time and situation that would not have made it Constitutional even if it were done by Congress."

Except the South was in a state of rebellion (attacking a federal fort=rebellion in the same way as if the Kentucky National Guard were to attack Ft. Knox today).

Though I must agree that Lincoln was usurping Congressional power when he suspended Habeas Corpus. There's just no logical way to conclude otherwise.

Your constitutional analysis is correct, but that is not really responsive to my point. I said that someone that directly experienced suspension of the writ of habeas corpus might believe that Lincoln was a dictator. I disagree that it was appropriate at that time. But I can tell the difference from policies I disagree with and acts that are unconstitutional. I respectfully submit that are there are several on this forum that would benefit from following my example.

No, the constitutional analysis is inaccurate. How can Lincoln, the executive leader who's powers are outlined clearly and concisely in Article 2, have suspended habeas corpus?

The ability to suspend this right is listed in Article 1, and is thus a Legislative power. Congress is the only entity that is allowed to suspend Habeas corpus, and even then it is only to be done during a time of rebellion.

But, even if we ignore Lincoln's usurpation of power - an act with shocking similarities to the very same reasons quoted in the Declaration of Independence as to why the colonies broke with England - we need to ask "how can a state be in open rebellion against the federal government, when the state itself has the right to secede?".

It's nonsense on stilts, and for some reason the entire community of historians and constitutional scholars can't seem to figure this out.

the southern states weren't in an act of rebellion - they were exercising their right of secession.

Amendment 10 clearly states, as does just about every other document discussing the rights of states at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, as does the Articles of Confederation (the document in power before the constitution), that secession is indeed a right of a state.

"Any power" not given to the federal government nor restricted to the states, is a state issue. Secession was not only understood to be a valid check on government usurpation of power, but it was understood to be a power of the states.

The Constitution, the Articles of Confederacy, the Declaration of Independence, the Address of the General Assembly to the People of the commonwealth of Virginia (Jan 23, 1799), the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, the Federalist Papers and many many many many more documents ALL agree with the right of a state to secede.

Were the 13 colonies initiating an "act of rebellion" against the king of Great Britain, or were they simply exerting their rights as citizens to hold their government in power?

The recent, delicious, book by Thomas E. Woods jr., "Nullification" thoroughly dismantles ANY argument against secession. Basically the question you need to ask yourself is "is it really that important to preserve the union?".

No, these people are demagogues. Look it up. Neocon's are the most dangerous people on the face of the Earth. They are interested in nothing more than world domination.

Sarah Palin specifically is a dominionist. Dominionism is the belief that you make physical war for Christ. Of course Christ said his kingdom was not of this world and ordered Peter to put away his sword.

That of course, has been lost on Sarah Palin who is without a doubt one of the most corrupted and dishonest politicians on the face of the earth. Palin could very well end up being the first female Hitler.

Let's see some proof. If you know so much, surely you have proof. You wouldn't stoop to character assassination....oh wait, that seems to be a hallmark of lefty politics. Yeah you would stoop to character assassination.

"...character assassination....oh wait, that seems to be a hallmark of lefty politics."

Why would you make such a ridiculous claim?Ldt, you don't appear to have a firm grip on reality. Beck has been trying to assassinate President Obama's character since he was elected. As you well know, he's the one who accused him of hating white people.

Do you even know what a neocon is? Leftists never can tell the difference between a neoconservative, which is a liberal that has come to see a small amount of reality in the area of foreign policy (although I disagree with them on part of it), and a conservative, who has an understanding of history and human nature that a leftist will never have.

On the other hand, if you really believe that Sarah Palin is a dominionist, I already know that you know almost nothing about political issues.

They're all interested in world DOM. WTO, NAFTA, weak illegal IMM laws (Actually, the laws would be alright, if enforcement wasn't so non-existant. They all want a peice of that NEW WORLD ORDER. DEMS GOPS everyone of 'em!

I am not sure, but it feels like Beck and The Tea Party Leaders have gotten togeather to try to Unite the Party Under a Christian banner. To make the claim Gods party.

A Party to restore Honor back to the U.S.. The timming feels like it to me.Not sure what this is all about yet, need to be still and watch, it will all come out I believe.

Reeguardless of the spin and crap talk- The Repubs are in Trouble, The Dems are proving they dont know what to do, and Obamas hidden agenda is exposed, so in truth we are drifting. Repeating 1933 all over again.

I think a lot of folks at that rally are saying we need a real leader to step up, and are asking God to help.

I think it's great what the SOWF is doing. Really sad that the GOVERNMENT doesn't do more for our veterans and their families.As to this particular event, Beck et al missed the grand poobah of opportunities! 9/11 is a SATURDAY. IDK, maybe there's another big rally that day -- in front of the proposed mosque site in NYC.

So you're reduced to quoting a wordpress blog by some left wing nutjob. All I hear from him is black, black, black. Nothing about us coming together and being one people, which was Dr. King's dream.

This guy seems to believe that anyone who is African American can do no wrong. His writings on the Jena 6 are especially repugnant. It this what you're reduced to? The racist bleating of a forever disgruntled should-be member of the New Black Panther Party? Sad.

Funny. My dad is a vet and he doesn't see how the Democrats have done anything but ruin the country he spent so much of his adult life protecting. You might listen to vets instead of that crazy little voice in your head.

And at least the 8/28 people are paying their bills instead of expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

The current state of disrepair started with Reagan, allowed to fester by Bush I and brought to a new nadir by Bush II. Obama is repairing it despite efforts by the Party of NO! to sabotage his remedies.

I wish I could go to see Glenn Beck in person. People should take what he offers and it is to look back at history. It doesn't matter if you are to the right, left or in the middle. We need to look at the history of the world and of the thinking of the founding fathers to see where we are now and where we are going. Glenn Beck teaches this.

Agreed, but don't expect people like chris to share this view. They're so tied into the indoctrination they got in school, that they can't even comprehend anything other than a Marxist ideological victory.

Good thing for you, he doesn't feel the same way. That, in the end, is the difference between you and him. He recognizes your right to spew hate like "he should commit seppuku" and doesn't hold your hate against you. You just hate him because he's a good man, and you're just full of hate.

If you are going to quote me - quote me exactly for what I said - which was NOT "he should commit seppuku". I was responding to the "Restoring Honor" theme - given the sorry state of his 'honor', it seemed the only way for him. But he won't - he's not through cashing in.

You weren't responding to the Restoring Honor theme, you were commenting that you'd like to see him commit seppuku. Wanting someone to commit suicide because you don't agree with them, that's hate speech no matter how much you try to claim otherwise.

Looks like there's less difference between you and the so-called haters in the Tea Party, isn't there?

Wrong!We hate for the content of their character. Beck hates for the color of their skin.Don't think so? Don't kid yourself. Everything he's doing is a cynical attempt to take-over the role of "oppressed and overcoming the struggle". What struggle? What super-hero underwear to put on today?What size esspresso? How many vials of tears he'll need for the "snow job of the century"?

sing this to the tune of Felix the Cat:

Beckles the Clown The mongering, cloddering ClownHe takes a job and twists the truthHe acts and stumbles and hides the truth!Beckles the ClownThe stuttering, uttering ClownThe day he dreadsHis face turns redAmerica turns around.

Veterans Today once had a list of all the votes that Congress took on veterans issues...it was shocking the difference between the pro-veterans, which were the Democrats, and the Republicans. They really don't put their money where their mouth is! They like to yahoo war, but when it's over, it's sayonara sister.

Wow, you really are delusional aren't you. Believe what you want, but if you can't provide video showing Beck saying he hates people for the color of their skin, you're nuts. I suppose you didn't see the show where he invited a number of conservative blacks to the show or the show where he walked the streets of Harlem. Oh wait, you don't watch the show, you just say stuff out of ignorance, sorry I forgot.

I am replying to the large advertizement of comparison of King and Beck that the previous post was responding to

it is truly sad when someone will go to such length to malign someone...twisting events for a story of negative impact

here's another way of looking at Beck's history...he even talked about on a show once

he talked about how awful he had been and the trials he went through in being a bad character example...but he also, as I do, learned to look at himself and changed what needed to be changed, as a good thing

he is imperfect as we all are, but that doesn't mean you keep doing the bad, you rise up, wake up and change, and keep working on getting better

no one can objectively view the rally today and honestly say it was a bad thing with no redeeming value and character upliftment...except those that don't know God, I guess

Because MLK promoted an idea. MLK was not a righteous man. He wasn't perfect, he had personal faults. But we remember him for his courage to speak out for an idea that wasn't faulty. That men would cease to judge others by their skin (or any other such distinction), but by the content of thier character.

The attacks on Beck are not particularly motivated by judgements of his character, but are all about the fact that the critics hate his politics, and thus, seek to destroy him publicly. It is the very opposite of what MLK pled for, the very opposite of what he spoke for, what he dreamed of.

MLK wasn't perfect, as I said, but he knew that millions of people were judged less than worthy merely for how they looked. And millions are now judged not worthy, and publicly maligned, merely for NOT being of the same politics. MLK made it about principle, not himself. And for that, he would be turning in his grave. Because race and poltiics have become the prototype and the new prejudice, where old racists have now come to express new prejudices about a person, merely on the politics of their ballot.

Well, I personally believe that it is incredibly presumptuous of you to believe that you know what Martin Luther King would believe about anything. I don't know what he would think; I just know what I think, and this poster illustrates it perfectly.

It is just as Chris says. It is a satirical way of showing the cheapness of Glenn Beck's character, the triviality of his "successes," and the irony that a man who is profiting by stirring up fear and anger has the gall to elevate himself as the leader of a movement to "Restore Honor."

What's presumptuous? MLK clearly expressed PRINCIPLED BELIEFS. To assume he held them is neither presumptuous nor illogical. Those beliefs are shared by a vast majority of Americans - less among liberals than anyone else, though.

One can certain criticise Beck. It's a free country. We ENCOURAGE criticsm and analysis of ideas. But there is no criticism of Beck's ideas or what he says here. Only the fostering of hate, by people desperate to divide us.

No, there isn't. Beck talked in large themes and developed concepts and principles. Not ONE of the critics here have addressed a single one of them. Nope, just "Beck promotes racism" and "Beck promotes hate" and "Beck conspires to hurt people".

Address the principles he and other speakers addressed, and then critique them. Or, just keep on hating. Frankly, you couldn't address what he said even if you tried, you haven't the intellectual muscle to understand such things.

Thanks for the admission that you can't address what was said and the things promoted at the rally. Where did I set myself up as any ideal? I didn't. What a strawman argument. As empty as all the others.

MLK had plagerized his work as Dr and has had extramarital affairs.It easy to look at a flaws of a wman, especially when you are not scrutinized yourself, but as a Black man I still follow MLK and still like Glenn Beck,( who has never be accused by either of the two things that MLK has.

All that poster says is that MLK was a saint and Beck as a prankster, but the poster says none oth e the other side of the the story for either person.

To be fair, if we concede that MLK had personal flaws, there were still objective accomplishments. Beck is not of the same stature. He does not even approach that stature. I agree that Beck should be judged for his ideas. But when he wants to take on the mantle of MLK for publicity purposes, it is fair to point out that they are not exactly of the same stature.

MLK would not claim any "personal accomplishments". He would claim that GREAT IDEAS HAVE TRIUMPHED. Alas, your comparison sucks, because Beck is more personally accomplished than MLK was. Which doesn't matter, because neither is or should be "followed". Both promote ideas which are better than and above themselves.

Again, the haters are making it personal, about Beck, Palin, Armey, and the millions of TEA Party people... It's personal to them, it's hate and anger directly against the person.

I completely agree. Discussing Glenn Beck's history as a radio broadcaster and his possible lack of stature as compared to MLK is a form of hate speech. If hate speech has ever existed, it finds its worst form in this poster. Not only is MLK turning in his grave, but Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Jesus and Buddha are equally unhappy.

What are you going to do Tim. These nutjobs got their hopes up when their Glorious Leader was elected, but now that mainstream America sees what they really stand for, they'll never get another shot at ultimate power. No wonder they're frantically pushing the same old tired buttons of racism, imperialism, the west is evil, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Personally I consider this a good thing. Let them spout off their ignorance and stupidity, it's funny in a way that they can't see past their own prejudices to see reality.

Your right, they prefer to blow up abortion clinics and kill fellow christian doctors and use their bible to justify it. A terrorist is still a terrorist ib this case the only thing that's different is the god giving the orders to kill another human being.

I like how Glenn Beck keeps aligning himself with the founding Fathers who were for seperation of church and state, as well as known atheists, then constantly talks about how religion (Christianity) is so important to the American way of life.

And while Christians as a whole dont slam planes in to buildings, unless they get sick of the IRS, they do bomb and intimidate countries until they feel the need to fly planes in to said agressors buildings.

And yes you might claim that not all christians support Americas overseas agendas, however very few muslims support flying planes in to buildings.

Glenn Beck and people like him are the reason America has such a bad world image.

Try reading a book sometime. None of the founders were atheists, at least not in the way it's understood today. Why else would they have opened the Convention with a prayer? Why does Congress have moments of prayer?

I could care less about how the world feels about America. If anything the world is lucky to have us. Who else would you like running things? Europe? Already tried that, they're the original imperialists, by the way. Russia? As the former Soviet Republics how that went. China? Ask the Chinese Nationalists, oh wait you can't find any because they were massacred by Mao.

Personally I'm all for military withdrawal from the rest of the world. Let the world burn. It'll serve them right.

ledefensetech never mentioned our national motto, so the fact that it became official in the 1950s is irrelevant, especially when it has been around and on money for well over 100 years. You ought to get out to some parts of Texas that aren't full of leftist nuts and you'll learn some American history.

As well, NONE of the Founding Fathers were atheists, not even one. A few were Deists, but there is no solid evidence that any were atheists. The most commonly used examples, Jefferson and Franklin, both believed in God. Even Tom Paine believed in a God who would judge the dead, and you won't find anyone who could be considered a founder who was more of a skeptic than he. Try reading some more books yourself, sir.

There have been attempts to rewrite history and change the character of the founding fathers. But they were mostly deists. This is not inconsistent with believing in God but they were not Christians. Deism was a common belief system among intellectual elites during colonial times. This is why I find it funny when the anti-intellectual and anti-elite crowd invokes the founding fathers. Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck would literally have hated the founding fathers.

I have never, ever seen anything remotely resembling hate in Sylvie's posts. If it exists, would you mind showing me? I find her debating style to be quite admirable, so I am interested to know what, exactly, you would consider to be hateful.

Sylvie scared the poo-poo out of the wingnut by challenging what is an axiom to them - and a false one. Sylvie proposed (correctly) that the founding fathers were Deists who deliberately designed and erected a wall of separation between church and state.

The Palin faction of the teabaggers operated in denial of the FACT that this is a SECULAR democracy that has NO religious favorites - that the religious opinions of evangelicals has a place - in evangelical churches and in the private lives of the believers, whether those believers are citizens or elected officials. The tenets of ANY religion - evangelical or Islamic have no place in secular law.

You misrepresent the founders AND "separation of church and state". First, some of the founders WERE Diests. True. But only some. An array of religions were represented. By far the majority believed in God in some fashion.

Second, there is no constitutional "separation of church and state", as in, an injunction from public officials being religious. Quite the opposite, the only restriction on Congress, was that it may NOT establish a state church or state religion.

The Church of England was (is) a state church, with backing by the government. It's influence over the state is wrong, as well as the temptation for the political class to attempt to interfere in matters of religion. THIS is what the founders sought to ensure never happens, and thus, wrote it into the Constitution.

We're quite comfortable with the state not interfereing with religions, and also with the churches having no influence over the state. But at the same time, tax breaks, the accomodation of faith, and the expression of faith in public or even governmental proceedings is neither prohibited nor desired. The freedom of worship and expression still applies to presidents and Congressmen and even gatherings at the Lincoln Memorial. So stop the propaganda and falsehoods.

What are you responding to? Your posts are larded with ad hominem attacks and bizarre straw man arguments. Really, I didn't say anything about founding fathers not believing in "God." That does not make this a Christian nation. As a historical tidbit though, during that time period many ministers were trying to warn of the dangers of French-inspired atheism among the intelligentsia. I think it is fairer to say that the influence of deist thought (as well as free masonry) explains the strong aversion to the creation of a Christian nation. Understand that deism is not a form of faith so much as a kind of agnosticism that uses European rationalism to reject Christianity (that's a gross oversimplification). If you want more information on deist thought, I can provide some references written at time. The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine is a good start.

Not all participants in the Constitutional Convention were deists but the most influential and prominent ones were. Frankly, it is hard to tell for many of the rest because in those circles many did not profess religious affiliation at all. There is no evidence of a single evangelical there.

One can look at the language of the Constitution itself. It is devoid of any reference to scripture. Instead, it scrupulously separates Church and State. The 1st Amendment prohibit Congress from making any law respecting establishment of a religion or limiting the free exercise of religion. The concept of religious freedom embodied in the 1st amendment has been repeatedly interpreted by our Supreme Court to be incorporated into what protections state governments must afford under the 14th amendment, i.e., when the Constitution stated "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" as a form of substantive due process, these words included religious freedom.

Article 6 of the Constitution likewise notes that "no religious test" will ever be required for qualification to public office in the United States.

The Treaty of Tripoli, entered into in 1796, begins with the language: "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...." For the founders, the fact that they were not building a Christian nation and were expressly excluding religion from government would have been obvious...but if it is not to you you need look no farther than how the U.S. was presenting itself to other countries at that time.

The Declaration of Independence itself describes God in strictly deist terms, i.e., "Creator," or "Supreme Judge of the World." Again, neither this document nor the Constitution contain any reference to scripture. The Constitution is particularly careful not to invoke divine authority.

Your constitutional analysis is hard to understand or follow. It sounds like you are arguing that the Constitution does not prohibit politicians from having religious beliefs or from people gathering in a public place to express religious beliefs. Well done, except I never said that it did. That is what a straw man is.

What was I responding to? Doug, of course. Duhhh. The incorrect nonsense about there being a wall between religion and public life. No such thing exists. There is, as I said, a prohobition on Congress founding a state church, and from banning or sanctioning anyone's right to worship. This is not the "wall" you so falsely call it. And please don't pretend that SCOTUS defines what the constitution means. It means what it means, and SCOTUS is often full of wacky nonsense. Whether SCOTUS is right or wrong does not change the meaning of what is absolutely crystal clear. And that clarity does not create what you want people to think it does. The purpose of Amendment 1 was to ensure that RELIGION COULD be part of our public life, yet neither be controlled, nor attempt to control, government. Doug's nonsense about it being only private is absurd. No such thing exists. It is fiction.

It is quite difficult to respond to this post because I am having trouble understanding it. You were responding to my post, in a way that was quite non-responsive and involve a series of ad hominem attacks and arguments against straw men. Now you say that you weren't responding to my post at all (but confusingly quoted my post language in yours).

You are saying something about the separation of church and state but it is something of a mystery what it is.

The only thing I understand is that you hate the idea that I may educate you on Supreme Court precedent. Let me break something to you, the Constitution itself provides that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means. Whenever there is a case or controversy brought by a person with standing involving a constitutional question, this is a matter for the federal courts. Supreme Court precedent is controlling on all federal and state courts in the land. Whenever any other branch of the government engages in unconstitutional acts, this mechanism can be used to obtain a ruling from the courts. This is why both the executive and legislative branches have lawyers to advise them of constitutional issues in light of Supreme Court precedent.

I have had a lengthy discussion on a different thread on this and am not going to repeat it here. This is plain from Article III of the Constitution and any disagreement on this point can only stem from willful ignorance. I do not agree with all Supreme Court opinions, but if I am talking about what is Constitutional and what is not, Supreme Court precedent must be part of the analysis. If you do not like that, you can advocate a Constitutional amendment to change the checks and balances in our system of government, or you can work towards some extra constitutional overthrow of our government. You are entitled. But you make an argument based on the Constitution while you say things about Article III that are completely wrong. Just because you disagree with something does not mean it is unconstitutional.

Precedent is worthless when it comes to defining what the Constitution means. The Constitution means what it means. Whether SCOTUS gets it right or wrong, the tradition of respecting precedent is nothing other than tradition. It does not change the Constitution. It still says exactly what it says and nothing else. it simply a shortcut for lawyers who are unable to make a valid argument on their own. In the end, it simly compounds error on top of error.

Those who point to "precedent" to try to apply the Constitution are simply unwilling to apply intellectual rigor, and instead, just mindlessly follow whatever court decisions they happen to be emotionally attached to.

Huh? Perhaps that is yet another example of my stupidity, shallowness, etc., [insert the many ad hominem attacks you have launched at me].? Is the plain meaning of the Constitution so obvious to you? Would only idiots disagree (I will concede that I am an idiot but cut the other idiots in the world some slack). If so, why is there disagreement on its meaning? Would it surprise you that the federal and state courts in our nation have had to resolve hundreds of cases or controversies regarding the meaning of the Constitution in the last 200 years? Could it be that people disagree on the meaning of certain provisions? How should they resolve these issues? If the litigants disagree with the rulings of the judges, should they accept them? If not, how do they go about resolving a dispute?

By "precedent," I assume you mean the doctrine of stare decisis. This is at the heart of our legal system. Anyone that disagrees is ignorant of our legal system. Civil law systems, like the one in France, do not rely on stare decisis. But our system does. There are many benefits to stare decisis...rather than the resolution of any controversy being dependent on raw opinion, our judges draw upon history to help create some consistency in their rulings. The decisions of our Supreme Court on any issue within its jurisdiction, including federal questions arising under our Constitution, is controlling on all subordinate federal and state courts. You do not require a legal education to understand Article III of our Constitution, but you do not understand it. Do you want me to help you?

You mean like Chief Justice Roberts in his confirmation hearings? Precedents have been changed using various rationales, but until they are reversed they define the meaning of the Constitution.

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated:

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.[2]

Weholdthesetruths is correct that the Constitution does not ban religion from public life. Religion, and the free exercise thereof, are protected by the Constitution.

The Constitution, along with judicial precedent as Sylvie correctly points out, also protects folks from being subject to government-sponsored proselytization.

That means (for example) that your kid's English teacher doesn't get to lead a class prayer. After all, you might be an Evangelical Protestant, your kid's classmate might be a Catholic, and the teacher might be a Mormon. Do you want someone who doesn't share your particular faith to be trying lead your kid down an alternative spiritual path?

You are so right. I am much more shallow than Sara Palin. Your criticism strikes me to the core. And I want to thank you for avoiding ad hominem attacks against others and focusing on responding to their ideas.

How would you know whether palin was shallow or deep? How would any of us know whether your criticsm and declaration of "shallow" is anything other than a reflex action to all those who disagree with you?

Well, your response only makes sense if you take the language you quoted and divorce it from the post you wrote that I am responding to. I made the point that the Founding Fathers were intellectual elites and given that Sarah Palin is anti-elite and anti-intellectual, she would literally have hated them. Here is how you responded:

"No, they would not. Palin and Beck are not shallow like you, who hates for mere disagreement on someting personal."

Do you see the irony in your response? In fact, you viciously attack anyone that disagrees with you. You do not respond to their arguments or viewpoints but attack their person. And then, ironically, accuse others of doing what you are so guilty of.

I've done nothing but STATE YOUR ACTIONS. Not a word about your "motives. If I were to talk about your motives, it would be "ad hominem". But I didn't.

"The founding fathers were intellectual elites". What a monumental load of BS. They were SUCCESSFUL people, but that's the extent of it. Washington was a businessman who ran a flour mill and fish processing business. Others were architects, writers, scientific experimenters, farmers, and the list goes on. These people were TRADESMEN. Not professors, not professional politicians, not people divorced from everyday life. In fact, they were as common as I am. They were elected or chosen for their positions based upon theri ability to made common sense argument, and relate to the people around them. They were as removed from the aristocracy of England as you could be.

Really? You don't think the Founding Fathers were intellectual elites? Do you need to believe that because you don't have a high opinion of elites or intellectuals? Is it because you believe the character and integrity of the common man is more valuable than education, intellect or power? Do Glenn Beck and Sara Palin share your views on the relevance of intellect, education or power? If the Founding Fathers were not honest to goodness "Joe the Plumber" tradesmen that were valued only for their common sense, would that change your opinion of them?

Spend some time looking at the bios of people like Thomas Jefferson, etc. In fact, I have a link to bios for all of the participants to the Constitutional Convention below. You would be horrified to find how many lawyers and jurists are represented there. A few medical doctors too. I believe one of them went to medical school and law school at the same time but I don't recall which one. I'm not saying it matters who the Founding Fathers were. But if you want to invoke them and claim to be the second coming of the Founding Fathers...perhaps you should learn who they are. I think if you learned more about them you would start searching for different idols.

You don't have to read any great volume of their writings to see that they were very afraid of the common man and his ignorance. That fear was part of the impetus to set up the checks and balances of our system.

The Tea Party would have had them considering even more roadblocks to mob rule.

You c laim Palin is "anti-intellectual", yet your argument is fiction. Palin's presented a more coherent foreign policy than anyone, for instancy, even the president, and he's supposed to have one. She courageously stakes out "This is where we go" instead of weasel words to avoid criticism. But you wouldn't know, because you know nothing about her.

YOu merely repeat what someone else says, without any actual or factual analysis on your own.

"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008

How does disliking Palin indicate my lack of integrity? I guess, by the same token, your dislike of Obama indicates your lack of integrity? What does either have to do with integrity. The above is one of the dumbest comments in this thread. And that's going some!

The truth is your respect for Palin shows your lack of common sense and good judgment.

Integrity isn't about whether you like her or not. You are desperately dodgding here. You know precisely what I addressed, was that you chose to base your dislike upon nothing. "I watched her a couple of times". On tv, no less. Ergo, your judgement is based on nothing substantial.

BTW, please quote my statements about Palin. You know, where I express my approval, or disapproval. Oh, wait. You lied about that, too.

Sorry pal, I didn't lie about anything. Let's not get into name calling. In case you hadn't noticed we try to avoid that in HubPages' forums. If you want to trade insults there are plenty of other places to do it. Seems to me you have a nasty little habit of making personal allegations about other participants rather than addressing the issues. Ad hominem comments about the motives or integrity of others in this forum is frowned on. You would be well advised to confine your comments to the issues and stay away from personalities. (The personalities, motives, integrity, etc., of public figures like Palin, Obama, Beck, et al, are fair game.)

My dislike of Palin is based on watching her repeatedly make an ass out of herself on television for the past couple of years, her questionable actions as governor of Alaska. She has nice teeth and should be doing toothpaste commercials. She is ill-equipped by knowledge, experience or temperament for public office. She is the Lady Ga Ga of politics.

There were some Deists, true - Jefferson and Franklin being the best known - but many were Christians. In fact, the majority considered themselves to be Christian. At least, I'm glad that you aren't one of those history deniars who claims that they were mostly atheists.

Anti-intellectual - now that is a laugh! I suppose I got my MS in geology because I hate thought, study, and knowledge (there is no intent to brag, everyone else here may have theirs as well)? I've never know a more intelligent group than the people I am around, and we are almost all conservative Christians. Anti-elite? Absolutely. I'm an American and as good as anyone else. We don't have elites here.

I am so happy that the people you surround yourself with are the smartest people you know. That must give you comfort.

The notion that Joe the Plumber and his brethren rolled up their sleeves and founded our nation is erroneous. The brightest minds of their time did, and there was disagreement and contention but there was some uniformity on how paternalistic the whole process was. The undemocratic checks on majority rule found in our Constitution reflects a deep concern of the dangers of the mob.

The tea party movement is certainly anti-intellectual and anti-elite. If you disagree with their tenets, that's fine.

Thank you for the sarcastic comment , I did go overboard a bit there. You must understand my point, though.

If by "intellectualism", you mean that the founders were among the most brilliant men of their time, then we are in agreement, and so is the tea party. I still reject the idea of "elites" in a country where we believe that "all men are created equal". If by "anti-intellectual", you mean that we reject modern stupidity as being modern stupidity, then I'll freely admit to fitting your definition of "anti-intellectual". The concepts of independence, freedom, natural rights, consent of the governed, personal responsibility and limited government are as valid and important now as they were 234 years ago.

I'd like to hear your responses to the above, but in addition, I'd like you to give examples of anti-intellectualism and "anti-elitism" in conservatism and in the tea party. Leftists everywhere accuse conservatives of such and then give no evidence to back up the accusation except that we disagree with them.

What do you think this "accusation" means? Palin would likely agree that she is anti-elitist and anti-intellectual. I hope you know what "anti-intellectual" means. Someone that is anti-intellectual is not admitting that they are stupid, nor are they necessarily so. It has to do with the way they view the relevance of intelligence, rationalism, education, , etc., in how to resolve political disputes and how to run the country. Indeed, you reflect anti-intellectualism when you made comments about how you reject "modern stupidity" in an earlier post. Palin would likely say that people get caught up in arguments, facts and sophistry when the moral common man knows what is right and wrong from common sense and should be entitled to govern on the basis of this common sense.

BTW, I don't ever believe I used the word conservatives. I personally know a great many conservatives that find Palin, Beck and the tea party movement repugnant. Conservatism had a rich intellectual tradition. The anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism started with the evangelical wing of the Republican party, but it sees its most recent expression with the tea party movement.

You may respond that I haven't shown you any youtube videos or anything where Palin expresses anti-intellectual or anti-elitist sentiment. I haven't and I don't need to win this argument. Just ignore it if you don't agree.

I'm not asking what Palin might say. You used "anti-intellectual" and "anti-elite" as a pejorative in your post above regarding tea partiers (of which I am not technically a part, but do sympathize). I wanted the reasons that you made that claim, and you haven't given me any. Palin isn't my pick for any public office, so I have no particular interest in defending her, except against the most outlandish claims that are made about her, such as the person above who called her a dominionist.

I do thank you for not condemning conservatism as a whole. I didn't actually say above that you claimed such, but that leftists as a whole most certainly do, and I appreciate that you don't. The tea partiers basically want a return to constitutional government. I don't see a preference for the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land to be a sign of anti-intellectualism. If so, then our founders were highly anti-intellectual. The world has not changed so that our Constitution is outdated and never will.

Where did I use anti-intellectual or anti-elite in a pejorative sense? I do actually have a dim view of the tea party movement, but I don't recall having expressed it here. I'm allowed to have opinions, right? And I should only need to answer for the things I write about, wouldn't you agree? What I wrote here was that I find it ironic that the Sarah Palins of the world that both espouse anti-intellectual and anti-elite views also invoke the founding fathers. Given that the founding fathers were intellectual elites, they were the very people that the tea party hates. If you think that the tea party is not anti-intellectual or anti-elite, and therefore I am operating under a false assumption, fine. I would like nothing better than to hear the tea party disavow both belief systems but I think I understand them better than you. You are ashamed of beliefs they are proud of.

Perhaps you can give me some specific examples of how the tea party movement wants a return to Constitutional government or having the Constitution be the supreme law of the land? I know a little about the Constitution.

I know - we had that little debate about the Constitution on the "Freedom of Religion?" thread where you said that just as everyone could read the Constitution, everyone could interpret it differently and I disagreed.

Look, I want to be fair - if I have taken your statements above incorrectly, I apologize.

As for the tea partiers, health care is a major issue. The bill that Congress passed is a blatant power grab that clearly does not fall under the powers granted to the federal government. TARP is an issue for the same basic reason and also because it is seen as a giveaway to big business that is in bed with the government (I know opinions vary on it, but that is the perception). Those are a couple of tea party issues that are constitutional in nature.

The definition of ignorant rabble: Anyone that speaks views that aren't touted by the progressive left.

This is the typical attitude of progressives and it's the second time today that it has come up in a discussion I was involved in. Progressives just believe they are more intelligent and know better than anyone that doesn't agree with them. Their views are the only views based upon thoughtful introspection developed over years of study in the works of great dictators and intellectual elitists that believe stupid people should be put to death for the good of society, like George Bernard Shaw, yeah he was a progressive gem! What are some of your other intellectual heroes, Saul Alinsky, Mao, Che, Stalin, Bill Ayers, and Obama, all smart people cut from the same cloth.

True. I heard a program on NPR a couple of days ago on JFK and the Cuban missle crisis. They have found transcripts of the meetings where the "best and the brightest" discussed what to do. The advisers unanimously recommended bombing the Soviet missle sites in Cuba. JFK had the guts and judgment to reject the advice and cut the deal (removing our sites from Turkey) which got the Soviet nuclear missles out of Cuba peacefully. I agree he wasn't a particularly liberal president.

Yes, by all means, explain how the TEA Party people are "anti-intellectual", when all the attacks on it are the very definition of "anti-intellectual".

Intellectual criticism of the TEA Party would not be false proclamations about what other people think. It would be what they think, analyzed in context. That's the exact opposite of what every critic and opponsent of the TP movement does.

Just so you know, I"m a TP type. So, get your act together, ask me what I believe (it will be the first time you find out what TP people think) and then, without prejudice and without preconcieved notions, attempt to discredit it. You won't be able to, and in fact, if you debate honestly, you'll become A TP type yourself.

Honestly, your post literally makes no sense. There was a really incoherent hubber that had the same avatar picture as you that disappeared and was presumably banned some time ago. I assume you are the same person. Perhaps your post makes no sense because I am uneducated and stupid? Do you think that's the reason? I'm looking for help to figure this out.

What do you think I'm saying about the tea party and its anti-intellectualism exactly? What do you think anti-intellectualism means?

In "intellectual" is defined as someone who uses thought and reason to address questions, issues, and to analyze or evaluate, and does so whether it's professionally or personally. As in, someone who uses their intelligence.

Anti-intellectual is obviously the opposite and adding "-ism" onto the end means that it is a chosen belief or ideology constructed purposefully.

Basically, you're accusing TEA Party people of being unwilling to use logic and reason and making that unwillingness a deliberate and universal choice among them.

Yet no criticism of TP people EVER addresses TP people's words or ideas. (please don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending that signs waved are universal thought among a group) So, since you have accused me of not using reason and logic to arrive at my beliefs and individual policy or principle stands... Have the nerve to stand behind that empty accusation by asking me and then debating the actual merits.

Actually, I know better than you what it is. Not the pop-culture perjorative you've slapped around, but the english language construction of the word. I don't accept "wikipedia" as a "source", as it is the height of pop culture ignorance. Words have meanings - "intellectual" has a meaning. Anti-intellectual has a meaning - specifically the opposite of "intellectual", by the rules of the language. Slapping the "ism" on the end does not change the word or it's meanings, even if someone tries to pretend the word is an original construct and the meaning is not already firmly established, and instead, attempts to create some political grouping.

If this is the shallowness of your thinking and your level of debate, forget it. I now understand why you repeatedly claim to be unable to understand what I say. I write in clear, direct, and unambiguous english, and aside from the occaisional typographical error, and subject to not being interrupted while I'm typing, quite grammatically correct english. When people say that they cannot understand me, it just means eitehr they're being deliberately dense, or they're so used to mangled english they can't comprehend it spoken straightforward.

Please insult me some more. There is no question that there are people that are smarter than I am. They would be equally confused by the posts here that I had difficulty with. You repeatedly insult my intelligence, and who am I to disagree? It is particularly shameful that I am so stupid given the gifts I have been given. After all, I have taught Constitutional Law and Civil Procedure at the law school level. I hold both a law degree and a master of laws. I have argued Constitutional issues before state and federal appellate courts for over a decade. This may seem like an elaborate argument from authority, but how could it be? After all, I can't even understand certain posts on this forum. Might I say, however, that weholdthesetruths conclusively demonstrates that members of the tea party movement are smarter than they look.

That explains your inability to think on your own. You asked me above if I could understand the constitution. Why, yes I can. It is written in clear and unambiguous language. Unlike the writing of most lawyers today, it means what it says and says what it means, in clear, conscise, and common language.

ANYONE who says that the Constitution means only what SCOTUS says it does... should be horselaughed out fo the conversation permanently, for gross s tupidity. In terms of application of law, it is the final word, but by no means does it in ANY fashion have the power to change any meaning of any article. None. It still means what it means, no matter how absurd the judge's opinion may be.

As for the tradition of using case law... It has my undying contempt. Certainly, I understand why lower courts use SCOTUS decisions as guidance in what is likely to be overturned ( or not ), but the merits of the Constitution never change. Nor does its meaning. An unwillingness to pursue clarity in law as it relates to the Constitution is, in my view, intellectual bankruptcy. Simply accepting what has gone before, when the case can be made that it is wrong, is intellectual dishonesty.

Again, I want to thank you for not insulting me. You are so right that people unfairly make personal attacks rather than confronting each others ideas. I am going to take your "undying contempt" for me in the best light possible. I should be lucky to even earn a response given my gross stupidity and inability to think for myself.

Franklin's writings are really ambiguous about whether he was a Deist or a more traditional Christian. I've read his autobiography and many of his other papers, and I can't figure the guy out. But the point is this: it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter what particular faith the founders had. What matters is the Constitution that they wrote for us. It is a secular document that created an officially secular republic in which the free exercise of all religions is protected.

It is a rather fundamental doctrine in the law that the plain and unambiguous text of the Constitution (or frankly any contract) governs how any disputes over its meaning should be resolved. It is where the language is ambiguous that problems arise and one must look at extrinsic evidence to interpret the language. With respect to the Constitutional language regarding freedom of religion, I rather agree that it is unambiguous. But some of the comments on this forum should show that this is open to debate.

No, led never mentioned the National motto, but he got a bunch of other stuff wrong. For one thing, the nationalist Chinese (who were not exactly champions of human rights themselves) fled to the island of Formosa, better known as Taiwan.

He also spread the falsehood that the Constitutional Convention opened with a prayer, when in fact it didn't. I do not say he lied, because he may actually believe what he said is true. But it's as false as false can be. No official prayer ever took place at the Constitutional Convention.

And since teh US dollars real strenght comes from an agreeement with these foreign countries that tehy will only sell oil in dollars, I think it is important that you remember that the only thing stopping your country from falling apart is their support/fear of invasion.

Actually the dollars strength only comes from people believing it has value. Look up fiat currency. You might also consider reading books published before 1950. You might learn something. Then again you might not.

As it turns out I read quite a lot of books, and the dollar strength comes from oil ever since its direct link with gold was removed after the attempted japanese gold buyout in the 1970's. Since then a treaty was agreed between the majority of oil producing states and america, in that America would 'protect' these countries on the understanding that they would only sell oil in dollars, hence creating an ongoing demand for the American dollar, which is still required today to buy one of the worlds most valuable commodities.

You may read books, but you don't read the right ones. Try reading, I don't know, books on economics instead of conspiracy theories. There is something to be said for oil backing the dollar, but it has had less of an effect than you would think. If we really did peg the dollar to oil, the economy would function as if it were on the gold standard, but with oil being the commodity not gold. The economy does not, in fact, operate like a commodities backed one, but like a fiat backed economy.

You've almost got it, you just need to understand the function of money a bit more. http://www.mises.org

I'd suggest Murray Rothbard's [u]History of Money and Banking in the United States[/i] for starters.

As much as it pains me to say it, Led is correct: the dollar has value only because people agree that it does. It is backed by "the full faith and credit of the US government" only. Most people agree that that means something. Some (like former president Bush) think it doesn't. (He once derisively referred to US savings bonds as nothing more than a bunch of IOUs.)

Belief in the dollar is important. But its strength is based on the productivity and vitality of our economy, the educational level of our population, our climate and natural resources and on our democratic system of government which is far from perfect but superior to those of other major countries.

Try reading a book that doesn't come from the wallbuilders organization or some other religious organization. A clue that you might be on the right track is when you find a site that isn't trying to sell you a copy of their proof. The references they use contain more than links to other authors on the company payroll.

I'm not sure who you are replying to, but have you ever read any history that wasn't put out by Howard Zinn? The modern left in the last hundred years or so are the only people who have seriously tried to claim that the founders were all atheists or deists. Have you ever read an old history book from before modern historical revisionism?

I haven't read much by Wallbuilders, but if you have evidence that they are wrong - prove them wrong. Ignoring them because they are religious is abject close-mindedness.

That would be a powerful argument in favor of a Christian Nation, except that the founders never opened the Constitutional Convention with a prayer. It was suggested, discussed, and tabled. And the mythical "opening prayer" never. Happened.

At one acrimonious juncture, Franklin moved for starting off each day with a prayer. Roger Sherman seconded. There was a bunch of discussion, and "After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing the matter by adjourng. the adjournment was at length carried, without any vote on the motion."

No prayer took place, according to the notes of Franklin, Madison, or any other delegate to the Constitutional Convention.

Don't make stuff up to bolster your case for putting God into the US government. I imagine God would have a problem with the false witness.

Well supported, however you are connecting the dot's all to easily. There were several letters having differing accounts of Franklins speach that day. Hamilton was the loudest in his disagreement. Washington was in favor. Most letters agree on that. The orthodox nature of religous belief during this time in history would have required an official member of the clergy. During the discussion it was even mentioned. It was decided that they didn't budget for a chaplain. Also that they could afford one. The idea that the motion for or against prayer defined the founding fathers religous beliefs is a falacy. Perhaps there were no "official" prayers during the Convention, but denying that the delegates wanted God's direction is simply ignoring the context of history. Finally, your not telling the whole story. After the Convention, and nine days after the first Constitutional Congress convened with a quorum they implemented Franklin's recommendation. This is a practice that continues still today.

"Well supported, however you are connecting the dot's all to easily."When you know the history (not the zealot version, but the real version) it's fairly easy to connect the dots.

"The idea that the motion for or against prayer defined the founding fathers religous beliefs is a falacy."I never claimed that the failed motion for an official prayer defined anyone's religious beliefs*. I debunked the falsehood that the Constitutional Convention opened with (or even hosted at any time) an official prayer. The only reason I pointed out that the Constitutional Convention did not open with a prayer is that someone was trying to claim that it did, and insidiously using that falsehood as support for state-sanctioned religion.

*The religious beliefs of the founders is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the secular nature of the Constitution, which derives its authority from The People, not from some supernatural source.

"Finally, your not telling the whole story. After the Convention, and nine days after the first Constitutional Congress convened with a quorum they implemented Franklin's recommendation. This is a practice that continues still today."Actually, I am telling the whole, true story. Someone claimed that the Constitutional Convention opened with a prayer. I showed that this was false. End of story.

No claims were ever made about the first US congress under the Constitution or any subsequent one. I do not dispute that the US congress traditionally opens with a prayer.

Ok, sure. No attempt was made to paint the founding fathers as simple "diest". They weren't, any reasonable person, diest or athiest can see that. The separation of church and state is one of the most misunderstood and abused phrases regarding the founding of our Nation. The separation of church and state was simply ment to keep Church politics separate from the State politics. It was NEVER meant to separate the "Diest" as you like to put it, from his/her God. Does the word CHRISTIAN cause you physical pain?

I see your confused by Franklin. Is it his faith mixed with pot smoking? The orgies in France? You see Christ himself never required that perfection was a prereq for Christianity. Thats something that a few theist and athiest have required. Your obvious anger or distaste for Christianity can't change history sir. I don't care how many proffessors you get to paraphrase, abridge or re-write history.

"Ok, sure. No attempt was made to paint the founding fathers as simple "diest". "

Not by me. And it honestly doesn't matter if the founders were Theists, Atheists, Deists, Catholics, Reformed Buddhists, or Orthodox Jews. The founders' personal faith doesn't matter. Heck, for the purposes of this discussion I'll stipulate that they were all faithful members of any sect you care to name. It. Doesn't. Matter. What matters is the secular nature of the Constitution, and the secular republic that it created.

"The separation of church and state was simply ment to keep Church politics separate from the State politics." And to keep the state from being an instrument of religious persecution. Remember that. That's the most important thing to take away from the establishment clause.

"I see your confused by Franklin." No, he doesn't confuse me, I just find it hard to guess, based on his writings, what faith he actually followed. But what faith Franklin (or any of his fellow founders) followed is completely irrelevant. That's the whole stinking point!

"You see Christ himself never required that perfection was a prereq for Christianity." I know that. That's the whole reason Christ was sent: people aren't perfect.

"Thats something that a few theist and athiest have required." Um...What?

"Your obvious anger or distaste for Christianity can't change history sir." Okay, sure. Good thing I'm not trying to change history (like some zealots would do) but rather teach what actually happened.

"I don't care how many proffessors you get to paraphrase, abridge or re-write history."Nobody's re-writing history but the zealots on both sides of the issue. The religious right is trying to pretend that the US was founded as a Christian nation (even making up stuff--that is, lying--like the mythical opening prayer at the Constitutional Convention to support their arguments). The radical atheists are trying to paint the founders as fellow atheists in order to suppress public displays of faith. The problem with both sides of that argument is that they're both built on foundations of sand: the arguments rest on premises that just. Aren't. True.

I'm not angry about anything except perhaps that people are spreading untruths in order to get their idea of God pushed on the rest of America. I'd bet that God would be disappointed in that kind of behavior. But maybe you worship a different god? One who tells his followers that the ends justify the means? Just a guess.

The Taliban sincerely believe in stoning women who commit adultery. The Israeli Shas rabbi sincerely wished that a plague kill all Palestinians. Evangelicals and fervent Catholics sincerely believe early term abortions are murder, that homosexuality is a criminal choice, and masturbation is a sin.

"sincere religous belief isn't simply a rule book that a person carries around with them. It becomes a part of their very being."

And given that point, and given that the founders chose to give us a Constitution that does not make Christianity our de-facto state religion (or even mention it), tells us that their religious belief guided them to found an officially secular republic.

I love it when the Rah Rah Religion crowd try to argue about how religious the founders were. I just plain love it. Because while their personal religious beliefs are pretty irrelevant, suppose they were all religious, suppose they were all really zealous, and even suppose they were all members of your particular church.

In spite of all this religious zeal, they still didn't even mention* Christ in the Constitution! Not to ask His guidance and protection, not to acknowledge His authority, not even to claim that He's on their side (as so many modern zealots do).

Given the religious faith of the founders, and given the total lack of Jesus in the Constitution, one of two conclusions presents itself:One, the founders wanted to make Christianity the state religion of the US, but totally bungled it by forgetting to mention the fact in the most important document they ever wrote, or,Two, they deliberately chose to create an officially secular government.

So which is it? Were the founders a bunch of zealous bunglers or a bunch of people of principle who in spite of whatever religious fervor they may have had, chose to protect people of other faiths by doing their best to ensure that no faith would be able to use the government hammer to pound another?

I'ts very clear that the founders wanted to create a government that was NOT specifically endorsing a particular brand of christianity, or any other religion. However it's rediculous to say that their personal beliefs didn't influence their work.

"I love it when the Rah Rah Religion crowd try to argue about how religious the founders were."

This statement indicates a harsh view of religion on your part. Particuarly Christianity.

"In spite of all this religious zeal, they still didn't even mention* Christ in the Constitution! Not to ask His guidance and protection, not to acknowledge His authority, not even to claim that He's on their side (as so many modern zealots do). "

Technically untrue. By your own account of history the motion was presented, seconed, discussed, carried but never put into place until much later. The fact is that the motion presented by Franklin was not discarded out of hand. Here again you suppose that since the document is in fact secular, the authors were also secular. This is faulty "THIS OR THAT" logic. It's very clear, at least to me that it was fanatical religion or over reaching religious power that the authors were trying to prevent. After all that's the enviroment they fled from.

"Technically untrue. By your own account of history the motion was presented, seconed, discussed, carried but never put into place until much later."Um, what? What the heck have you been reading? Not my posts.

First of all, by my own account, the motion to have prayer at the Constitutional Convention was made, seconded, discussed, never voted on, and they never did have prayers at the Constitutional Convention. Go and re-read what I posted. It's still there.

"The fact is that the motion presented by Franklin was not discarded out of hand." I never said it was. Go check. I'll wait.

"Here again you suppose that since the document is in fact secular, the authors were also secular." NO! No, I never said that. Go frigging look! What I did argue was that in spite of their collective faiths (whatever those may have been), the founders still wrote a secular document and founded a secular republic. I never said the founders were irreligious or "secular" people. "It doesn't matter" what faith they were, is what I said. Sheesh.

(Though at least you've conceded that the Constitution is a secular document, which is not without hope.)

Second of all, whether or not they officially prayed at the Constitutional Convention (and they didn't) is irrelevant to the fact that the Constitution itself does. Not. Mention. Christ*.

Your post above seems to be trying to argue that:

Since an official prayer was moved for, seconded, and discussed without resolution at the Constitutional Convention,

thenChrist is part of the Constitution.

That's even sloppier reasoning than my error about Habeas Corpus, in a thread waaaay above, especially since you've acknowledged that the Constitution "is in fact secular."

"It's very clear, at least to me that it was fanatical religion or over reaching religious power that the authors were trying to prevent."

Absolutely! That's why they founded a secular republic. To keep the government from becoming a blunt instrument that a church can use to bludgeon infidels, heretics, apostates, and other dissenters.

Your argument presumes both know nothing about them. In your haste to make rhetorical blather, I think you've made serious error.

It seems to me that you're engaging in ad hominem, not even for the sake of personal debate, but just for the sake of political convenience. Allowing yourself to dismiss whole classes or large groups of people, their opinions, and even their beliefs and lives, for politically expedient purposes.

I find it amazing that you can't defend your attack on Palin with any kind of actual argument... You just throw the lable and hope it sticks.

Like what, exactly? Noting I've seen now or in the past has shown that he has a penchant for violence. In fact, for a time, he would close his show like this: "Use truth as your anvil, nonviolence as your hammer and anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with nonviolence, reject it. "

Not exactly the world of someone who holds a violent worldivew like oh say Bobby Seales or Bill Ayers. Those guys actually did participate in violent acts, don't you know.

Read the hub I wrote recently about Mr. Beck....and his perpetuation of the "secret Islamic agenda" in our nation....which he also points in the direction of the government...

While he may not outright call Obama a Muslim....Beck works through innuendo...

This man is dangerous...

Having family members who watch his show and support him, I have seen the type of rhetoric he inspires....

Beck likes to close the minds of his listeners..... He will use the arguments of people like me....(rational and factual information) and then make his viewers believe that people like me, and the info we hold and pass, are outright liars...or worse, part of his loony conspiracies....

To read your post, your comments presuppose there is some reason to believe it would be horrifying if he was Muslim.

So, just to clarify, what is it you're defending him from?

Frankly, I have no idea of Obama's faith. Or lack of it. Such things are not for us humans to judge.

The issue at stake, though, is not about Obama's faith. It matters little to the secular issues of governance if Obama secretly looks heavenward when faced with a dilemma and under his breath whispers "God" or "Allah". What matters is whether Obama buys into or accepts the rest of Islam - much of which governs the very secular aspects of our society, things from civil rights to business to economics to banking to lending to whom to blame for things going wrong. Islam is not a religion, as westerners see it. It is an all encompassing ideology, one that is strictly authoritarian and self referential - giving no deference to the people who live under its rule. It is, to those who accept it, not just a religion, but an entire philosphy and method of thinking. One governed by a set of rules and dogmatic adherence to a specific authority and comes with its own version of history, logic, and morality.

That being true, it would be both relevant and even important to know if Obama were an adherent to that aspect of Islam, because it DOES affect governance and thereby is relevant to presidency.

"It is an all encompassing ideology, one that is strictly authoritarian and self referential - giving no deference to the people who live under its rule. It is, to those who accept it, not just a religion, but an entire philosphy and method of thinking. One governed by a set of rules and dogmatic adherence to a specific authority and comes with its own version of history, logic, and morality."

Huh. That's a pretty apt description of some versions of Christianity, too. Especially the 'comes with its own version of history' part, as we're discovering more and more through discussions on the forums here.

"That being true," You mean, you accept it as true, and expect everyone else to also accept it as true without scrutiny?

I never said the dollar was pegged to oil, and while the dollar is supported on the strength of it's own economy somewhat, it seems foolish to discount not only one of the most valuable commodities, but also one of the most heavily taxed commodities.

Sigh. You should try reading up on money and the theory of money. I think there's a sharp mind in there, you just have to stretch it a bit. I'll admit that it's hard, even for me, sometimes to envision a commodities backed currency; but it can be done. You do realize that since we have a paper money backed currency, that the money you make will always lose its value, right?

Yep, but to show how oil is in some way a large factor concerning the value of the dollar, it might interest you to trace the dollar value in relation to episodes in recent history when oil has been restricted for one reason or another.

I find it hard to imagine a currency which does not lose it's value over time, since in most cases the content of a coin is adjusted in line with inflation. See for instance when buyers where searching for pre 1990's copper English coins for their metallic content value when compared to more recent British coinage.

The value of the dollar is of course affected by the amount of currency in circulation, however this is in someways reduced by foreign holdings and taxation.

This is however only my opinion, I have not been trained in economic to any degree other than my own research, which for the most part I did for shares and currency trading. I did this fairly succesfully with limited capital until I had to cash it all in to fund my emigration.

I need to yeild in this conversation, since right now I am suffering from the basic economic principal that time is money, especially when you are self employed!

That's where most of your confusion comes from, I think. While I have not studied the current monetary "basket of currencies" system, I'd be interested in hearing more about it. I've known you can make money at it, at least for a time. I'd also be interested in hearing about your experiences with the system as well. It'll provide a valuable counterpoint to what I know of stable monetary systems.

The current confusion over oil being used as a backing for the dollar is part truth and part smoke and mirrors. It's an attempt to create a fiat currency without the drawbacks of a fiat currency, namely the destruction of the currency's value.

Another reason you might find it hard to understand monetary policy is that monetary policy is intimately tied to banking. That why Rothbard's book talks about currency and banking. Give it a read, I'd be interested in hearing you thoughts on it.

BECK: (laughing) This is such a ridiculous -- this is such a ridiculous thing that his daughter-- (imitating Malia) Daddy?

GRAY: It's so stupid.

BECK: How old is his daughter? Like, thirteen?

GRAY: Well, one of them's, I think, thirteen, one's eleven, or something.

BECK: "Did you plug the hole yet, daddy?" Is that's their -- that's the level of their education, that they're coming to -- they're coming to daddy and saying 'Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?' " Plug the hole!

BECK (imitating Malia) Why, why, why, why, do you still let the polar bears die? Daddy, why do you still let Sarah Palin destroy the environment? Why are -- Daddy, why don't you just put her in some sort of a camp?"

"Why isn't this man being sued for slander or libel? He's accusing people of teaching things like "Jews are destroying the world" to kids for instance. It's not like its even hard to find the evidence of Beck saying that, because he's already recorded himself and broadcast what he's said!!! Seriously, when is somebody going to nut up and slap hobo Glen with a lawsuit to make him actually obey the laws on things like slander, libel, hate speech, etc."

"Thank you, I agree completely. I would quickly join a class action lawsuit to sue this man for slander, terrorism, emotional distress, etc. This man makes me feel that he is inciting war and encouraging domestic terriorism through the brainwashing of his listeners on his radio and television show."

"There are people who teach their children these things,not the one Glen Beck accuses.The ones who do,have learned to operate under the cover of deception.Much of the material Glen Beck uses comes from "storm front".The deception is to accuse others while getting their material out.This is why the things Glen Beck says are soothing to the ears of people with nazi posters on their walls.In looking at this and the rest of fox news I can only ask one question.Is Rodger Ailes a lifetime high ranking member?"

You think that may be because what ABC reported isn't what Beck actually said? Context, man, context (and accurate recording). I could take posts you have made and make you sound like a racist jerk by twisting your words if I wanted to do so. You wouldn't like it, so why is it acceptable for ABC to do so to Glenn Beck?

Funny--I listened to a radio host, who I was expecting to be gushing about the rally, and she wasn't. She said, although the speakers were focused on a positive message, the crowd was not! THEY were all about Obama the muslim, not born here, get him out....etc.

And I also think they are going just according to game plan.Remember, Gingrich said "Say no to everything, then come November, we will provide the solutions."Well, nows a good time to start looking like people who want to provide solutions!After all, the damage has already been done....and then some.

Because, if you think about it: if they REALLY believed the things they have propulgated about Obama.....why would they even "be positive"? You mean they are going to forget what they've said: that he is a muslim socialist terrorist racist who wasn't born here and wants to destroy America?

Isn't that irresponsible?

(i posted this same thing on my local blog...let's see if the one guy says something....the one who i think is sab-oh here!!!!!).....Oh Sabby! Sabby!......you here? Or over there?

chris...like any other short quote, there is greater context from which it came...

I have heard Beck say a lot of things, and others said he said a lot of different things, but I have lived long enough and read widely enough and studied and practiced religions and belief systems extensively enough to know that nothing can honestly be conjectured from a simple quote

chris, you don't seem to be able to have objectivity...there are a lot more perspectives out there that prove that your view is clouded

all sides "sh** " on each other...I try to see those perspectives and center on what needs to be looked at...that opposition is never and answer to problems. just because sometimes people fall into the pit of negativity, as I was speaking about before, doesn't mean it's the right place to be...your attitude does not one any good and helps nothing

I listened to Sharpton speaking about the Beck rally on cspan and even he recognizes that some people just can't understand how other people think, and that people disagree because something in them doesn't want to make things better...

Let me put it like this:If Al Sharpton on his radio show had pretended to be Bush and his daugter, and had said "Daddy, why haven't you sent help to the Katrina Victims?""There hasn't been enought damage yet honey. Not enough damage."

Or had Sharpton said "Bush has a deep-seated hatred of black people. He's a racist."----

what would your "objectivity" be?"

Remember when Jackson said "Hymie Town"?When Obama said "Retarded Olympics."---

Do you remember the reaction?????

YET.....Beck can say ANYTHING and get away with it, same as Rush.

You call that objective?

And no, I know an opportunistic phony charlatan when I see one. I will never trust a word he says.

Responding to Pretty Panther's writing . This is a poster and not a hate speech. I find it refreshing and based on the facts of two men that are being discussed in this forum. In order to debate others with opposing views one must be able to think on their own. Be able to separate the facts from opinions. I realize people get impassioned with their speech but get a grip folks. RonM. Pretty Panther, thisisoli , Chris and earnesthub are being as objective as they can be here. Chris is using extremely creative and thoughful similies and using comparisons that we could all learn from. Beck is a physical and emotional wreck and very simply tried to pull off a publicity stunt with no sensitivity for the date and place of this speech. And look we all fell to his level. I can't believe that Beck once again makes Al Sharpton look good. ( He was a wreck in the 80's and 90's - but has turned over a new leaf, I think...)

"The attacks on Beck are not particularly motivated by judgements of his character"

Oh yes they are.He said Obama--our very first black president-- is a racist who hates white people. He THEN takes the day of a revered black leader to pretend to be a fighter for equality!!He ridicules Obama and his daughter on his show.....and then says things like "daddy why do you hate black people"....

Glenn Beck is the racist. IMO. And he cynically uses a hallowed day for black people to promote the tea-party---------

Whose members have been known to carry signs, and say things of a racist nature!!!!

They were asked not to bring signs or guns.......why hide it? Don't you think we know it's still there?

Yeah, but your opinions aren't worth the bits it takes to store them, because nothing of your commentary reveals any thought or integrity.

Beck's a racist, in your opinion, of course. But, I assume you consider anyone who isn't exactly in agreement with yuou to be a racist, homophobe, classist, nazi, and probably about 30 or 40 other negatives not worth typing out. Funny, I would bet you didn't get upset when Obama insulted a large swath of Americans with his rhetorical speeches in California. Why?

I'm quite sure you can't provide any evidence to back up your "racist" charge, other than your presumed motivations. It's the "I know he's X because he wants x". "how do you know he wants X" "because he's X". Circular logic writ in large scale, you know.

If all this handwringing is what's required to make you feel at ease with your prejudices against others, I understand. It still makes you a dishonest creep, but I do understand it happens.

Chris gave several examples to back up her opinion that Beck is racist, yet you say she gave no evidence. Then, you attribute beliefs to her that she never actually stated. Then, you call her a creep, which probably qualifies as a personal attack, and you use the adjective "dishonest" to describe her, even though everything she said is the truth.

Again, you are projecting onto others attributes that you yourself are displaying.

"The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence." Even Ayn Rand said something rational once in awhile.

LOL, Chris gave NO examples of anything, other than to decontextualize some phrases and slap "racist" onto it. I stand fully by my comments. I've read lots of Christ's postings, and it's all the same mindless partisan drivel. It's all juvenile "GOP Evil, Obama good" blather, without a single rational thought behind any of it.

At least you are responding to her ideas and not attacking her personally. Where you come from, I am sure telling someone that there is not a single rational thought behind anything they say and that everything they say is mindless drivel and juvenile blather is high praise. I am impressed by your ability to continue taking the high road.

Your sarcasm is misplaced. Chris's postings are single minded partisanship. I know what it looks like, I've been in online forums and online debates on my topics, since before the internet came around.

Chris operates in the "repeat outlandsish nonsense endlessly, hoping some of it sticks" mode, and nothing else. Anyone swayed by it is obviously not much of a thinker or very observant.

No one can know anything about what is inside another person's head. But we can judge people by what they say and do. A number of people on this thread have posted direct quotations from Beck. Those are his words and he says them before a massive audience. Apologists have suggested that these statements are taken out of context. That's easy to say about anything. If you think we are being unfair, provide the context where it is missing.

"If you think we are being unfair, provide the context where it is missing."Indeed!

If Beck's quotes (or anybody's quotes) are being taken 'out of context,' it's not enough just to say, "Oh, that's being taken out of context" and call the other guy wrong. You need to provide the context so we can see that the quote is being taken out of context and is really innocuous.

It's like that advice to authors: show, don't tell. If you could show us that quotes are being taken out of context (by providing the context, for example), that would be really cool.

Nonsense. it is YOU who must prove your assertions. It is not for your audience to find the missing setting and context, in order to discover the truth. If it is, you are a dishonest propagandist, with no regard for the truth.

I understand your political POV leaves you without any defense, other than to attack the person of your opposition. Modern liberalism, with it's statist and self referential elitism is not intellectually defensible in any way. Thus, your ONLY means of defending it is to personally destroy any visible and possibly convincing opponent.

Thus, the "Beck is a racist, has bad motives" blah, blah, blah. If Beck's so wrong, it would be a simple matter of refuting him with logic and reason, but you apparently cannot. The funny part of all of this, is that I pay scant attention to Beck, but your mode of operation is so clear and so desperate in nature, one has to wonder why YOU haven't recognized it yet. I have no need of defending Beck, only defending truth. That's my sole interest. I'm quite certain that even the closest thing I have to a modern hero, Thomas Sowell, is not someone I agree with fully on everything. I'm not threatened by disagreement even with him. Nor by anyone. Truth wins, period. And that's all that needs to happen and that's all that matters.

Oh, and there is no multiple versions of "truth", either. It is what it is, period, unchanging and unaffected by "perspective".

Beck speaks the truth, straight from God. As I recall he said God wrote his speech at the shameful rally on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

This is astonishing, coming from someone who has been participating in this discussion and also says "I have no need of defending Beck, only defending truth."

Several people have quoted Beck, and used those quotes to support their conclusions that the guy is a hatemongering racist. (I personally don't care if the guy is a racist or not, btw.) Wehold has said, those quotes are taken out of context. Sylvie challenged him to provide the proper context, so that we could see if the conclusions about Beck--based on Becks words, mind--are valid or not.

Wehold disavows his "out-of-context" argument by claiming that it's not his responsibility to give context when someone else takes a quote out of context. (All the while, remember, he claims to value logic and truth.)

Let me show you what logic looks like:

Given: A person who makes racist statements is a racist.Glenn Beck is a person.Glenn Beck makes racist statements.Therefore, we can conclude that Glenn Beck is a racist.

Or, more abstractly:If A and B are true, then C is true.A is true. B is true.Therefore, C is true.

If all of these premises are correct, the conclusion is valid.If one of these premises is incorrect, the conclusion is invalid.

Support for the truth of the premises has been provided, in the form of Glenn Beck quotes.

To make the premise invalid, all you have to do is either disprove the truth of the premises. Either show that a person who makes racist statements is not a racist (difficult...), or show that Glenn Beck is not in fact a "person" (for satirical purposes only, I'd entertain such an argument, but in a serious discussion it's absurd), or demonstrate that the quotes attributed to Beck were either a) not said by Beck but fabricated, or b) not actually racist in nature.

Rather than do that, Wehold simply said, in effect, "You're wrong," and declared victory.

Glen Beck makes a lot of sense on some points , and on others he's out there. At least he has great intentions, his damatic role playing is stupid, however, why do you people always kill the messenger ? Take some of what he says and leave he rest! Simple. He's not a god nor is he trying to be one , he's a media pundit.

You see, that's where we disagree. I think his intentions are rotten to the core.I think he wants to promote hatred and division, and most of all, he wants the big money republicans back in power....cause that's who he serves.

His agenda is politial, cynical, and hate-filled. IMO.

I will always speak out agains him, and the rest of that PNAC crew over at Fox. Fascists come waving the flag and carrying a cross.....BEWARE, is all I will say.

Admit it, Earnest--You just don't like him 'cause he talks about God too much, lol...

Sure, he's a shock jock at times--but so are many others who show up on TV on a regular basis...both sides have their regular "consumate liar"as you put it--it just depends on which side you're on as to who is the actual liar, haha.

I'm not on either side--I watch Beck's show, and make my own decisions about the issues. Some I totally agree with Beck, but others I don't. Same goes with Olbermann, and any others who love to hear themselves talk, lol.

You may not like the man, but some of the issues he discusses on his shows make a lot of sense, if you just listen to the topic.

Forget about "Right"...forget about "Left"...just try to listen to common sense, on EITHER side--it's there, believe me.

You don't have to like the messenger to agree with the issues they discuss...

I'm not sure there is honor in hypocrisy. there is a seemingly huge disconnect between his rally and MLK. he says, we become what we gaze on. well, yeah, and he sure seems to stir up a lot of hate. will his show change now after his pep rally?

As one who witnessed many of these matters, Dr. King was the closest thing we ever had to a Ghandhi, whose principles he tried to emulate. I remember Farrakhan and Young as being the real troublemakers and hate mongers. Malcolm X being one of them too. Sometimes drastic measures are needed to acheive fairness, even here in the US

MLK stirred up hate, alright. Such that he was killed over it. But stirring up hate doesn't mean you're wrong. Merely that you make people confront things they'd rather not. Or, you challenge notions that people don't want to change.

The hate of Beck is nothing different than the hate of MLK, just people hating because of having their pet views challenged.

I seriously doubt the Fox watchers will appreciate the humor in this, Ralph! Finding out a touted Muslim owns a share of their favorite news outlet may cause them some confusion! But confusion never seems to prevent them from making uninformed observations! LOL!

PALEASE!!! Comparing Beck To a martyr is screwed on a couple of levels. The only time Beck has shed his own blood in the pursuit of a worthy cause, was when he cut himself shaving. MLK gave his life to further EVERYONE's civil rights. Glen Beck would never give his life like that. BE REAL! And I'm not even black

MLK didn't give his life. It was taken. There's a huge difference. Beck's quite successful, in having financial success, has had a successful career, has been successful in overcoming alcoholism and dependency.

Seems to me you're not only prejudiced... but blindly so.

If tomorrow, someone shot Beck, you'd not call him a martyr, you'd say "good riddance", which was what the people who wanted MLK dead said.

What do you refer to as "personally accomplished"? Beck's probably quite wealthy, has had a successful career, has won the battle with alcoholism and many other things.

That, by ANY decent measure of a person, is "personally accomplished". King wasn't a scholar, his writing and speeches were not always his own words, his personal life was a train wreck. And he was killed for his stirring up controversy.

Yet, we admire him, for his courage to stand and point to something bigger than what most had yet to accomplish, higher than most even aspired to, and said "THERE IS WHAT THE FUTURE SHOULD BE". In other words, he inspired people. Many hated him for it.

Beck apparently inspires people to do good. I have yet to find anyone who has been able to tell me where he tried to get people to go do bad things. And, he stirs up hate among those who oppose his ideology or his dream or whatever it is he's promoting. Seems to me that regard him as a devil and MLK as a saint is 100% deliberate hypocrisy.

" King wasn't a scholar,"Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. got his PhD from Boston University. I don't have a PhD. Do you?

"his writing and speeches were not always his own words"Presidents use speechwriters, too. But perhaps you can give some examples of King's writings and speeches that were not his own words?

"his personal life was a train wreck."No argument there. Lots of leaders have difficulties with one-on-one relationships.

"And he was killed for his stirring up controversy."That's one way to look at it. Another way might be that he was killed because he challenged the status quo.

"Beck apparently inspires people to do good."For example?

"And, he stirs up hate among those who oppose his ideology or his dream or whatever it is he's promoting."Um, n... Well, actually, yes, lots of his opponents say hateful things about him, that's true. I have to give you that.

"Seems to me that regard him as a devil and MLK as a saint is 100% deliberate hypocrisy."The difference is in the ideas the two different men promote.

They're equally controversial, true. But King was agitating for justice for an oppressed minority (which, by the way, still is an oppressed [though less so] minority). Beck is agitating for...I'm not even sure what he's in favor of. All I can get from his speeches is what he's opposed to, which seems to be anything that might challenge the status quo.

Never mind. I found a report from ABC. "Hundreds of thousands of attendees." Scary when you consider that most of the crowd showed up to hear/see Palin. I'm not saying that the message was bad at the rally, but how can so many people be enamored of Palin?

I liked Palin when I first "met" her. After learning more about her, however, I found her frightening. If this is the best that the republican party has to offer, I might just stay home in 2012. That would be the first time I don't vote in a major election since I turned 18. Of course, if Hil somehow manages to run, I would support her over Palin!

Habee - NBC (I think) paid a professional company to take pics from the air and then estimate attendance. They put it at 87,000 (+/- 10%). In any case, it's likely (bordering on certain) that the attendenc was under the goal of 100,000 to 200,000. The facts don't deter some news outlets (gues who) from claiming over a half-million. The last time the teabaggers did a DC shindig, they posted pictures of the huge crowd - butt he picture turned out to be fraudulent - of some other gathering from at least a year before.

Ninety-thousand nuts off their medication gathered in one place is still too many - but that's what it was.

The mainstream liberal media can't handle anyone who isn't politically correct. Yes, Beck gave his opinion and that is his right. People are treating Obama like he's God, he's not.How on earth can Obama...

Conservative radio host Glenn Beck is at it again. Beck, known for his outrages comments on American political life, is now saying that he plans to expose what he calls a government cover-up and conspiracy involving the...

So much for toning down the rhetoric. Not just Beck, but Beck's boss at Fox News are refusing to call off the dogs on this one.How a 1966 article about welfare reform could POSSIBLY be considered the cause of America's...